Thoughts on Trust and Reversible Transactions.

[camosoul]

Actually, Iron was the first metal to be stamped into coins. The problem was it rusted and was too common. Gold has value because it is rare, doesn't corrode, has better electrical properties than silver or copper, can be molded and formed easily, can be reused over and over. It is also very heavy by volume and hard to counterfeit with another heavier metal. Stamping coins into standard sizes does help with trade but it isn't the reason the metal itself is valuable. Of course, a lot of history is passed down by the "tax collectors" so there are going to be a bias for their benefits.

Why do gold and silver coins from mints or non tax collectors have value today? It is simply because the metals are rare and have attractive properties.

Taxing with a certain commodity or currency is only needed to run a government. If there were no governments, there would be no taxes. All commodities would still have value. The only thing that would stop having value is fiat.

Ok, so moving on from commodities with value to digital currency. A commodity or precious metal has value because of it's rarity and usefulness. With gold there are only so many Oz above ground and is mined at a certain rate. This gives a predictable quantity in circulation. It is also hard to counterfeit and each oz has the same value as any other (fungibility). The rarity and fungibility give it value as money.

Now looking at digital currencies. Dash is one of the few that actually can replace gold. It has a limited supply. Just like gold some dash exist today and some are coming into circulation at a predictable rate. It is also secured against counterfeiting with a public ledger(blockchain). So any Dash mined can be tracked to the same number of dash in circulation today. It also has the ability to mix coins and erasing the history making ensuring all Dash have the same value. So with digital currencies not only does it require rarity and fungibility, but it also requires the ability to see all transactions to prove rarity.

This is how I explain Cryptocurrency to "educated economists." They're so deep in the forest they can't see the trees. They're wrapped up in what they know to be the rules of Fiat Money, and they're right. but Cryptocurrency is Commodity Money, not Fiat Money. Cryptocurrency derives it's value the same way Toilet Paper, Gasoline and T-shirts derive their value. Not through convoluted excuses and so-called "backing."

 

[demo]

Society choosing to be taxed...NO. The only one that cares about taxing you is the government!
Obviously, the government is not going to benefit from crypto. The banking system will also not benefit from crypto. So what? They are parasites that take most of the wealth that you earn through inflation, loans, or taxes.

Only three distinct types of government exist: (direct) Democracy, Oligarchy (indirect democracy, republic, parliamentarism, e.t.c there are many variations here) or (absolute/despotic/constitutional) Monarchy.

In oligarchy or monarchy, the one who mainly cares and benefits from the taxes is the oligarchy (government) or the monarch. In those two cases, the society (the citizents) are not allowed to decide how they will be taxed.

In a society where a (direct) democracy is applied the society (the citizents) also care about taxes. Because even in a (direct) democracy, the monopoly of the violence (police, army, e.t.c.) is necessary and always requires financing from the state. In that case the society (the citizents) choose to be taxed.

So in all cases, either in a democracy or in an oligarchy or in a monarchy, in order to protect that society from external and internal enemies, taxes are necessary in order to finance the monopoly of the violence (which is necessary for the existance of every society).

 

[TanteStefana]

LOL, Camo's on a tear! Enjoyed

There are times when a contract could use some sort of protection, however, we do have smart contracts and arbitration for those times.

 

[Solarminer]

LOL, Camo's on a tear! Enjoyed

There are times when a contract could use some sort of protection, however, we do have smart contracts and arbitration for those times.

On the last LTB podcast, AA was talking about adding a 15 day hold on Bitcoin payments. During that 15 days the buyer could reverse the transaction. Kind of like allowing a chargeback for a limited time. I don't know if he was saying it just because it was possible or an actual realistic expectation.

This turns into a who should trust who scenario. For POS I don't see that this should ever be an option. For mail order, maybe it makes a little sense. But for the most part anything like a chargeback should be done by a 3rd party with some sort of rating system.

 

[Solarminer]

Only three distinct types of government exist: (direct) Democracy, Oligarchy (indirect democracy, republic, parliamentarism, e.t.c there are many variations here) or (absolute/despotic/constitutional) Monarchy.

In oligarchy or monarchy, the one who mainly cares and benefits from the taxes is the oligarchy (government) or the monarch. In those two cases, the society (the citizents) are not allowed to decide how they will be taxed.

In a society where a (direct) democracy is applied the society (the citizents) also care about taxes. Because even in a (direct) democracy, the monopoly of the violence (police, army, e.t.c.) is necessary and always requires financing from the state. In that case the society (the citizents) choose to be taxed.

So in all cases, either in a democracy or in an oligarchy or in a monarchy, in order to protect that society from external and internal enemies, taxes are necessary in order to finance the monopoly of the violence (which is necessary for the existance of every society).

In a true democracy, the poor will always vote to tax the rich so they can get free stuff. And since there are more poor than rich - votes indicate that 'citizens' want to pay taxes. How about you do a poll and ask if the people with the money paying the taxes actually want to pay taxes?

 

[demo]

In a true democracy, the poor will always vote to tax the rich so they can get free stuff. And since there are more poor than rich - votes indicate that 'citizens' want to pay taxes. How about you do a poll and ask if the people with the money paying the taxes actually want to pay taxes?

You cannot do a poll and ask some citizents, and refuse to ask some others. Democracy is a solid regime, and every citizen must be asked. If you separate the electorate, then you do not have a single democracy-state, you have two democracies-states instead.

In a true democracy, and as long as the rich need more protection from the police than the poor, it is rational they have to pay more taxes.

If you do not want to pay the taxes of a society, then you simply do not belong to that society. And if you do not belong to that society, then the monopoly mechanism of violence of this society (the police and the army) is not obliged to protect you.

If the rich refuse to pay the taxes, this means they do not want to belong to the society, so they have to pay not only their own private police, but also their own private army that will protect their property-state from intruders.

If you are not so rich that can afford a competitive army capable to protect you, then you are oblidged to belong to a society. And this society for the protection services that offers you, it will demand taxes from you, the more rich you are, the more the taxes.

In the Athenian democracy, the richest person was oblidged to pay for whatever the society asked. He could not refuse the payment, he had only the right to claim that there is another person richer than him. In that case the other person could ask to switch their wealth . This is how ancient athenians solved the problem of the taxes of the rich.

So please when talking about taxes, do not forget the cost of the protection of the rich that society pays (army, police, judges, jails, guards e.t.c), in order for them to remain rich. If you are rich and you dont want to pay taxes, then go to live in a place where no army, no police, no judges, no jails, no guards exist there. And you will figure out if you will remain rich there ....

 

[Jacked]

You cannot do a poll and ask some citizents, and refuse to ask some others. Democracy is a solid regime, and every citizen must be asked. If you separate the electorate, then you do not have a single democracy-state, you have two democracies-states instead.

In a true democracy, and as long as the rich need more protection from the police than the poor, it is rational they have to pay more taxes.

If you do not want to pay the taxes of a society, then you simply do not belong to that society. And if you do not belong to that society, then the monopoly mechanism of violence of this society (the police and the army) is not obliged to protect you.

If the rich refuse to pay the taxes, this means they do not want to belong to the society, so they have to pay not only their own private police, but also their own private army that will protect their property-state from intruders.

If you are not so rich that can afford a competitive army capable to protect you, then you are oblidged to belong to a society. And this society for the protection services that offers you, it will demand taxes from you, the more rich you are, the more the taxes.

In the Athenian democracy, the richest person was oblidged to pay for whatever the society asked. He could not refuse the payment, he had only the right to claim that there is another person richer than him. In that case the other person could ask to switch their wealth . This is how ancient athenians solved the problem of the taxes of the rich.

So please when talking about taxes, do not forget the cost of the protection of the rich that society pays (army, police, judges, jails, guards e.t.c), in order for them to remain rich. If you are rich and you dont want to pay taxes, then go to live in a place where no army, no police, no judges, no jails, no guards exist there. And you will figure out if you will remain rich there ....

Interesting debate. While in any society citizens need to contribute to a common pool for community benefit, the growth of digital currency, assets, and trade will mean that taxation will need to radically evolve in the future. The following possibilities come to mind:

1. Money, income, trade and commercial law will soon become global and not geographically based or controlled. Individuals will be as much part of a global society as they are of geographic communities.
2. It will ultimately become nearly impossible for states to track the income and wealth of individuals, if individuals desire it to be hidden. So nations will be prevented from becoming over-zealous with taxation, lest their citizens disappear financially into the deep web.
3. Ultimately the nation-state will become challenged by the ability to coerce tax, and reduce to essential geographic services like social and physical infrastructure and law and order.
4. Taxation bureaucracy and regulation will need to be disbanded and reformulated in light of what will actually be possible to enforce. Taxes will be need to be appropriated in simplified forms, as a combination of universal, global community, and localised taxes. For example, (i) universal - some inflation of money supply to sponsor ongoing financial system development, (ii) global community - taxes or fees paid by global interest-based communities that voluntarily enter guilds to protect those common interests, (iii) localised - land taxes as a condition of residency, user-pay systems, a register of voluntary donations and contributions that are recognised by the communities in which people operate etc.

ie. Tax, or more generally, community contribution, needs a radical rethink from the perspective of a global society as nation-states become less powerful over time. But ultimately I don't think tax needs to be an implicit property of the money itself, only in the institutions and procedures that society builds around it.

 

[camosoul]

The problem with retractable payments, is two-fold. Again, we're seeing the ugly socialist face of crypto, being so entitled and demanding that it doesn't even realize that it's shooting itself in the foot. These sort of people see the "user experience" as nothing but the consumer. Well guess what? Vendors are users, too, and they don;t like getting fucked over.

1) Retractable payments are not actually payments at all. The vendor cannot count on that money still being there, so he must operate as if it is not there. Not only that, but it's tantamount to giving away free stuff. Now that identity is not part of the transaction, there's no excuse for it.How do we keep track of people abusing the system? We can't. Nobody can claim "Oh, but they stole my identity! It wasn't really me!" Because there is no identity. In that environment, a retractable payment is nothing more than an opportunity to get fucked. No crypto currency wille ver be adopted when goes off the deep end to support whiny socialist dickbags. It's counter to what businesses want. Is it really so much to ask that you actually pay for the shit you're walking out of the store with? If you want a babysitter to steal your money back for you, pay Visa. They're already doing it. How "accessible" is money that you can't spend anywhere, but all the "users" can pass around to each other acting like they're special? My dick is really accessible to me, but it's not going to suck itself... The other party has to see a compelling interest in blowing me. The socialists in crypto seem not to comprehend this, lending credence tot he notion that they all live in their mothers' basements and have never gotten laid. I can't think of a single business that is interested in signing up to get fucked by cash that can disappear out of their cash register drawer. Go ahead. Find one. I'll wait... DASH has used IX to eliminate the nefarious means. Why do they want customers who are planning to rip them off before they even walk through the door? Why do they want to support the platform that enables that? They don't. Just because a bunch of whiny socialist shits demand a thing, does not make it a good idea.

We see a similar issue occurring in the DGBB. People who just won't grow up, presenting proposals in a fashion that the MNOs aren't smart enough to put in their place. No one should be requesting funds to do research. Ever. We're here to accept what you have done, or hire you for a job you can do. Prove it. Come to the table with proof that you can do this, because you've done it before. Not just someone with a silly idea knowing that the DGBB might just be dumb enough to pay for it. If you can't afford to fund your own idea, have no experience, you shouldn't be taken seriously. But, MNOs are the same silly kids in their basements as the fools present the proposals. We saw the flip side of this in the proposal to hire Solarminer and myself. We brought killer results to the table on a timeframe that was secretly hoped to sabotage us by several of the Devs... Were we even mentioned in the photo post over on BCT when the machine landed at D10E with all new hardware? The socialist basement dwellers circled the wagons to protect their own attitudes. I don't care about getting credit for anything. The point is, look how far these people will go to conceal their own behavior... That degree of left-fringe extremism will never comprehend businesses as users, too. And even so, what business would be so far out of it's mind that it would get in bed with people like that? What about the businesses' user experiences? Ask that question of several of the devs, and it's a deer int he headlights look. They have no fucking clue what it even means? What? Vendors exist? I thought this was just about consumers? You mean there's something else we should be considering? A whole portion of the economy and userbase that dictates adoption, and you dare suggest we have no idea how to serve them, or that they even matter? Vendors dont't matter, how dare you suggest that there's soemthing to do beyond tweak the app's appearance! How dare you declare us imperfect! Fuck you! My Ouija Board says sell, and that's all that matters!

2) Trust. Being able to take the money back means you can be an irresponsible dickhead. It keeps bad businesses alive. You're willing to take a chance you otherwise would not take. Reputation begins to lose it's meaning. You don't have to do due diligence. You can be a dillhole, make bad choices and Big Brother will save you from yourself, while keeping the asshole company in business. If you treat every transaction like it's final, you put more thought and effort into due diligence. Not only does this make consumers into irresponsible dipshits that do things like "buy" houses with 50 year interest only mortgages, and then cry about it and demand free money to bail them out... It means there's no consequence to the scammers; where do you think that bailout money went? People will keep doing business with them because the risk is reduced and/or eliminated. If the risk remained, and the reputation were bad, poof, out of business. No one will take that higher degree of risk, so that business won't survive. Natural selection. Retractable payments disrupts this by removing trust, and concern for it, from the equation. The risk needs to remain high, or the natural order of things fails.

 

[camosoul]

Interesting debate. While in any society citizens need to contribute to a common pool for community benefit, the growth of digital currency, assets, and trade will mean that taxation will need to radically evolve in the future. The following possibilities come to mind:

1. Money, income, trade and commercial law will soon become global and not geographically based or controlled. Individuals will be as much part of a global society as they are of geographic communities.
2. It will ultimately become nearly impossible for states to track the income and wealth of individuals, if individuals desire it to be hidden. So nations will be prevented from becoming over-zealous with taxation, lest their citizens disappear financially into the deep web.
3. Ultimately the nation-state will become challenged by the ability to coerce tax, and reduce to essential geographic services like social and physical infrastructure and law and order.
4. Taxation bureaucracy and regulation will need to be disbanded and reformulated in light of what will actually be possible to enforce. Taxes will be need to be appropriated in simplified forms, as a combination of universal, global community, and localised taxes. For example, (i) universal - some inflation of money supply to sponsor ongoing financial system development, (ii) global community - taxes or fees paid by global interest-based communities that voluntarily enter guilds to protect those common interests, (iii) localised - land taxes as a condition of residency, user-pay systems, a register of voluntary donations and contributions that are recognised by the communities in which people operate etc.

ie. Tax, or more generally, community contribution, needs a radical rethink from the perspective of a global society as nation-states become less powerful over time. But ultimately I don't think tax needs to be an implicit property of the money itself, only in the institutions and procedures that society builds around it.

While they still have an iron fist, they're going to use it. This gradual atrophy you envision will not happen. Government never gives up power without bloodletting, and lots of it.

All the "wild west" and "blood in the streets" you hear about every time the socialists fail to take our guns away... Read a book. It's those same socialists in power that commit genocide. Government never gives up power without a bloody, horrible fight. Always in the name of "equality" and "safety."

 

[demo]

1) Retractable payments are not actually payments at all. The vendor cannot count on that money still being there, so he must operate as if it is not there. Not only that, but it's tantamount to giving away free stuff. Now that identity is not part of the transaction, there's no excuse for it.How do we keep track of people abusing the system? We can't.

Of course we can.

A single buyer or seller should never be allowed to retract his payments.
Retractable payments should be allowed to occur only in the rare case the dash community votes-decides for it.
Retractable payments should be a political decision (a generic law that applies to many cases) rather than an economic transaction. Politics always is (and always should be) above economics.

I can't think of a single business that is interested in signing up to get fucked by cash that can disappear out of their cash register drawer. Go ahead. Find one. I'll wait...

This already happens, it is called tax.
Due to the taxes, cash disappers out of buisiness's cash register drawer.
But despite this, all the business still work that way.
They pay their taxes, in order to finance the state so that the state to be able to protect them. Because if there is no state's protection (police, army, jail, jury, guards e.t.c) , economy cannot flourish. And of course the taxation varies, the state decides what buisness should flourish and what buisiness should perish, by increasing or decreasing the relevant taxes.